Posted on 06/18/2018 8:49:38 AM PDT by Salvation
In daily Mass for Monday of the 11th Week of the Year, we read a passage from the Sermon on the Mount. It is a challenging text that raises many questions if read in a literal or absolute manner.
You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, offer no resistance to one who is evil. When someone strikes you on your right cheek, turn the other one to him as well. If anyone wants to go to law with you over your tunic, hand him your cloak as well. … You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you … (Matt 5:38-44).
What a text. It seems to preclude self-defense! What does it mean to “offer no resistance to one who is evil”? Jesus does not say that one should not defend oneself if attacked; He says that one should turn the other cheek. Is this a call to radical pacifism? Does this mean that a nation should have no police force, no judicial system, no army? So radical does this text seem to most that they are overwhelmed and simply turn the page.
Instead of turning the page, though, we might do well to reflect on its message:
The text seems to be more about offenses against personal dignity than physical attack. It is true that a strike on the cheek is physical, but in the ancient world such acts were understood as an attack on personal dignity rather than a grave physical threat. This is the case even today. Being slapped in the face is not a devastating threat to physical well-being; it is an insult. In the ancient world one who wished to humiliate a person struck the person’s left cheek with his open right hand. For the one struck, this was an indignity to endure, but not the worst one that could be inflicted. The worst insult that could be given was striking the right cheek of a person with the back of one’s right hand.
So, what Jesus is describing in this passage is more a question of dignity. His basic teaching is that if someone tries to rob you of your dignity (by a slap on the cheek), realize that your dignity does not come from what others think of you; it is given by God and no one can take it from you. Demonstrate your understanding of this by offering your other cheek. Don’t retaliate to “regain” your dignity. The one who struck didn’t give you your dignity and cannot take it away from you. To retaliate is to enter the world of the one who insulted you. Stand your ground; do not flee, but do not become like the one who insulted you.
This text is not about defending oneself from life-threatening physical attack; it is a text about personal dignity. Wanting to get back at others because they offended you, or did not praise you enough, or poked fun at you, or did not give you your due; all of that ends because it no longer matters to you—at least not when Jesus starts to live His life in you.
So, this text has a cultural context that does not necessarily require us to interpret Jesus’ words as an absolute exclusion of legitimate self-defense in moments of serious physical threat.
Any distinctions I have made above by way of explanation should not remove the core of Jesus’ message, which is meant to limit retaliation and remove from it anything “personal” other than the protection of one’s life from imminent threat or significant injustice.
This reflection serves as background to the Church’s careful and thoughtful approach to the subject of necessary self-defense. The Catechism of the Catholic Church sets forth this teaching as part of its exposition on the 5th Commandment (Thou Shalt Not Kill). Here are some excerpts:
The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. “The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor … The one is intended, the other is not” (CCC #2263).
Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore, it is legitimate to insist on respect for one’s own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow: If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful … Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take care of one’s own life than of another’s (CCC #2264).
Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility (CCC #2265).
The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people’s rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. When it is willingly accepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation. Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people’s safety, has a medicinal purpose: as far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party (CCC #2266).
Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor. If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person. Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm—without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself—the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity “are very rare, if not practically nonexistent” (CCC #2267).
All citizens and all governments are obliged to work for the avoidance of war. However, “as long as the danger of war persists and there is no international authority with the necessary competence and power, governments cannot be denied the right of lawful self-defense, once all peace efforts have failed (CCC #2308).
The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:
These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the “just war” doctrine (CCC #2309).
Thus, self-defense and the ending of unjust aggression should never be something we do lightly or without reflection. The Lord and the Church require of us serious reasons for bringing lethal blows even to enemies; we should never undertake such measures without considering carefully other less-extreme responses. Respect for life means that I can demand my enemy respect my life, but also means that I must respect his. Recourse to war or other lethal measures may sometimes be necessary, but we must examine our motives and carefully consider alternative methods.
Finally, recall that the Sermon on the Mount is not a list of moral rules that we are expected to follow with the power of our own flesh. Rather, they are a description of the transformed human person. They describe what a person is like when the Lord lives in him and transforms him by His grace. The transformed person is not excessively concerned with personal dignity. The world did not bestow dignity and thus cannot take it away. The transformed person is not concerned with getting back at those who have inflicted blows against their dignity; He is content to be in God’s favor and increasingly free of vainglory, the excessive desire for human praise and standing.
The *turning the other cheek* passage is about letting insults go, not about not defending oneself.
Self defense? How did that get in the discussion? Lets reframe it, protection and defense of others which we are called to do.
Had a pastor once that didn’t want a gun as he wouldn’t shoot anyone. I asked , “what if your wife or grandchildren were threatened?? He has a gun now...……………………………………..
(Exodus 15:3) The LORD is a warrior; Yahweh is His name!
If you have no capacity for violence then you are a healthy productive citizen, a sheep. If you have a capacity for violence and no empathy for your fellow citizens, then you have defined an aggressive sociopath, a wolf. But what if you have a capacity for violence, and a deep love for your fellow citizens? What do you have then? A sheepdog, a warrior, someone who is walking the hero’s path. Someone who can walk into the heart of darkness, into the universal human phobia, and walk out unscathed.
http://treehouseletter.com/2015/01/30/the-sheep-the-wolf-the-sheepdog-ltc-dave-grossman-american-sniper/
That’s a good account of the way it most likely must have been. Thanks for your thoguht-provoking reflections.
Well, it’s sure true that there’s a lot that we don’t absolutely know. There are seeming paradoxes or discrepancies among the four Gospel accounts, and it’s not like every detail even needs to be ironed out. It started out with “Blasphemy, He says He’s God” and ended up with, “He’s fomenting opposition to Caesar.” The false witnesses couldn’t even get their own stories straight, as the Gospel says.
After all, they had no evidence of wrong-doing. It was a kangaroo court and a travesty of justice. Malice and lies.
I am particularly struck by the way Jesus said, “Nobody takies my life from Me. I lay down my life.”
Thank you, Jesus my Savior.
No.
That’s a way to teach a lesson to your enemies but doesnt apply to weapon wielding enemies.
Neither does ‘forgiveness’ apply to actively stopping criminals from committing their evil upon others.
Did you read the entire article?
Exactly X2.
Indeed. I sleep well, mostly.
What Scripture also says is
Recompense to no man evil for evil. Provide things honest in the sight of all men. If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men. Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord. (Romans 12:17-19)
See that none render evil for evil unto any man; but ever follow that which is good, both among yourselves, and to all men. (1 Thessalonians 5:15)
Not rendering evil for evil, or railing for railing: but contrariwise blessing; knowing that ye are thereunto called, that ye should inherit a blessing. (1 Peter 3:9)
For what glory is it, if, when ye be buffeted for your faults, ye shall take it patiently? but if, when ye do well, and suffer for it, ye take it patiently, this is acceptable with God. For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps: Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth: Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously: (1 Peter 2:20-23)
Thus retaliation is proscribed, and enduring persecution and wrongs is prescribed. Yet appealing to just laws, and exposing injustice and combating it, at least for principle sake and when it hinders the preaching of word of the Lord, is positively exampled:
And as they bound him with thongs, Paul said unto the centurion that stood by, Is it lawful for you to scourge a man that is a Roman, and uncondemned? (Acts 22:25)
And the keeper of the prison told this saying to Paul, The magistrates have sent to let you go: now therefore depart, and go in peace. But Paul said unto them, They have beaten us openly uncondemned, being Romans, and have cast us into prison; and now do they thrust us out privily? nay verily; but let them come themselves and fetch us out. (Acts 16:36-37)
What your priest does not ask is, "Does Jesus Forbid The Burning/Extermination of Heretics by the sword of men in the hand of the RC church?" And physical punishment by the same means against wayward members?
Time to sleep.
I own a sword!
It’s not a very good sword, mind you. Not very sharp.
And the next sword I plan to get will probably have pieces flying off at high velocity.
I guess I’m just a bad consumer of stabby implements.
Also, placemarker for the article.
It is evil to execute vengeance, but it is not evil to summarily execute without malice, but purely defensively, a beast—human or animal—in the process of unjustly taking the life of oneself and/or a fellow human.
I disagree, I say: turn the page(s), all of them. Don't try understand Matt 5 by itself through reflection. Listen to the voice of the Good Shepherd, don't be a self-defense sheep.
John 10:27-28
27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:
28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand
Luke 12:5
But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear him who, after your body has been killed, has authority to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him.
2 Peter 2
But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves. Many will follow their depraved conduct and will bring the way of truth into disrepute. In their greed these teachers will exploit you with fabricated stories. Their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping.
Deuteronomy 13
13 If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder,
2 And the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them;
3 Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for the Lord your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul.
4 Ye shall walk after the Lord your God, and fear him, and keep his commandments, and obey his voice, and ye shall serve him, and cleave unto him.
5 And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death; because he hath spoken to turn you away from the Lord your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt, and redeemed you out of the house of bondage, to thrust thee out of the way which the Lord thy God commanded thee to walk in. So shalt thou put the evil away from the midst of thee
Acts 7
59 And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.
60 And he kneeled down, and cried with a loud voice, Lord, lay not this sin to their charge. And when he had said this, he fell asleep
Great post. I'll say this about heresy though, it's real and worthy of hell fire. Dealing with it is problematic, not dealing with it is just as perilous.
Yes, heresy is serious, but the issue is the basis for determining it, how it is to be dealt with. Catholicism makes her presumed ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility the basis for what is Truth vs. error, which is heresy itself, and thereby sanctions coercive physical punishment to deal with those it deems to be heretical, and papal teaching required RC rulers to exterminate them, or else the people did not have to obey them. - Canons of the Ecumenical Fourth Lateran Council (canon 3), 1215; http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/lateran4.asp
And which recourse is one of the many things Protestantism had to unlearn from Rome.
The Church has the right, as a perfect and independent society provided with all the means for attaining its end, to decide according to its laws disputes arising concerning its internal affairs, especially as to the ecclesiastical rights of its members, also to carry out its decision, if necessary, by suitable means of compulsion, contentious or civil jurisdiction. It has, therefore, the right to admonish or warn its members, ecclesiastical or lay, who have not conformed to its laws and also, if needful to punish them by physical means, that is, coercive jurisdiction. — Catholic Encyclopedia Jurisdiction
► Q. 540. How did the Pope acquire and how was he deprived of the temporal power? A. The Pope acquired the temporal power in a just manner by the consent of those who had a right to bestow it. He was deprived of it in an unjust manner by political changes. - http://baltimore-catechism.com/lesson12.htm
I shudda read ahead.
Interesting!
Just what kind of 'thing' would get a person to turn down Jesus' offer of salvation?
I love it when folks really understand the hidden things in scripture!!
Just WHO were the dudes that actually were carrying the swords?
OBVIOUSLY the tax-collector fella! He MUST had had all kinds of MONEY on his person he needed to protect.
Maybe one of the fishermen.
They'd need to take out a nasty critter caught in their nets before it could harm them.
Thank you for that post. Very good.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.